Who Are You Calling A "Denier"?

The Label "Denier" Is A Lie

I am not in "denial". I am not part of any "public relations" program. I am not beholden to nor paid by anyone to express my opinion about what I call the myth of man-caused global warming. Oh, and I am an Earth Scientist, a Geologist to be exact. My original interest in this subject has been purely scientific. It is politicians who have made global warming a world-wide political and economic issue. I have all of this well-documented and I've done it purely as a hobby, as ...almost a personal battle against injustice.

 

It is unjust because most people are not scientists and are too busy with their own lives to look into the real science behind the concept of man-caused global warming. As sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I am sure man's activities are not significantly involved in causing global warming or climate change. People are and have been systematically, callously, relentlessly, calculatingly indoctrinated into believing that the burning of fossil fuels, (coal and oil) is causing global warming, climate change and every weather-related event, the more dramatic and destructive the better.

 And our government just keeps pouring out the false propaganda, and since the government might as well own the mainstream media, theirs is the only side of the story most people hear. It is a travesty and a tragedy. It is being pursued by governments for only one reason: to control the energy industry and use it as a means of further controlling and taxing the people. It is like taxing the food we eat or the air we breathe. When and if people become aware of this, they will become, as I am, outraged.

Read the following typically slanted article and check out my blog linked in the comments section.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwynne/2014/06/26/the-public-relations-debate-about-global-warming-heats-up/

 Opening quote from the linked article in Forbes:

 

"The denial of man-made global warming is one of the greatest PR campaigns in history.  With echoes of the industry-funded research from tobacco companies that denied links between smoking and lung cancer, the well-coordinated PR plan has delayed new regulations for coal and petroleum industries and influenced millions of Americans."

 

The author of this article is wrong, exaggerated, uneducated, and inflammatory in nearly everything he says.  It is little wonder I don't pay much attention to anything printed in Forbes Magazine.  How can they pay someone to write something so stupid?

Glaciers As Global Warming Drama, Part Of The Big Lie

The nonsense about man-caused global warming and climate change just keeps coming.  It is the grandest hoax of our age, and that is saying a lot.  What is the latest outrage to irk me?  Glaciers.  Plain old ice.

Everyone responds to dramatic effects.  The news media knows that.  Hollywood knows that.  We are a culture bred to respond to video or photographic images.  Man was first influenced by verbal story tellers, then accompanied by song, then came the written word, then the drawn or painted visual word, followed by photographs, then moving photographs, now video and everything digitized and available anywhere at the speed of light. 

This is why glaciers are used so often to depict "catastrophic" global warming, because they are visual, huge, dramatic, and awe-inspiring.  Imagine, people take cruises to places like Alaska, Patagonia, Argentina, and Antarctica, for what?  To see big ice cubes (glaciers) melt.  Then they attribute the melting to man's burning of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2).  Apparently, many people are so awed by this melting ice they are willing to open their wallets and freely give money to those who promise stop the calamity of big melting ice cubes.  This melting and freezing of glacial ice has always been going on.  It is nothing new.  Al Gore did not invent it.  It is not a catastrophe because President Obama's teleprompter says so, or because John Kerry is instructed to say it is.  It all sounds insane, doesn't it.  Well, it is.

Why do they continue lying to us about global warming and climate change as being (or implied to be) man-caused in articles like the following? The only answer is we are being manipulated. What is the reason? If this effort is based on lies, it is wrong, and our money (taxes) are being taken unfairly and we ought to be outraged. Can it be much simpler than that? Are we so afraid to dissent and disagree that we march along like sheep to the slaughter? Have we as a people, as a nation, sunk so low, become so passive, so obedient? I hope not, even if recent election results seem to indicate otherwise.
Peter

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229752.600-ice-sheets-may-have-already-passed-point-of-no-return.html#.U6uKCjco6eQ

"THE cracks are beginning to show. Greenland's ice sheets slid into the sea 400,000 years ago, when Earth was only a little warmer than it is today. That could mean we are set for a repeat performance.

The finding, along with data from Antarctica, suggests both of Earth's big ice sheets may have already passed a crucial tipping point, condemning them to collapse – either melting, or sliding into the ocean. That will mean sea levels rising by as much as 13 metres, leading to massive coastal flooding. So how fast will the ice collapse, and can we stop it?"

 

(Is the above statement from the linked article complete sensationalist nonsense, or what?  Of course it is, and it is typical of what our young people are being fed and considered science.  Think of what a steady diet of this poison does.  And we wonder why people vote the way they do?  Peter)

The Big Lie: Global Warming And Climate Change, cont'd.

Man-Caused Global Warming And Climate Change: A Monstrous Lie

It is well known and documented that Alpine Glaciers (those found in mountainous areas) have advanced and retreated many times in recordable history.  This is history witnessed and written of by man during the past approximate 5,000 years.  There is unmistakable and unarguable evidence these glaciers have advanced and retreated many times since the end of the last Ice Age, when Continental Ice Sheets covered much of the Polar Regions and the Northern Hemisphere.  Something caused this glacial retreat, or melting, and it wasn't man-caused.  At least this melting occurred before he burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

These were also at least as rapid climate changes as we see in the world today.  So what is unique about current events?  Why are we in such a frenzy to "stop climate change"?  It is nothing unusual, unless we're being scared and panicked by fear?  Is it so we will happily, or a least willingly, pay more taxes, carbon taxes or otherwise, to solve this imaginary warming problem?  We should be worried, but not about global warming.
Peter

Perito Moreno Glacier, Argentine Patagonia

Scientist Reveals Inconvenient Truth to Alarmists

Tuesday, 17 Jun 2014 07:59 AM

By Larry Bell

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

 

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

 

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

 

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

 

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

 

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

 

Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years."

 

 

Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which showed marked cooling.

Casting serious doubt upon alarmist U.N.-IPCC projections that the Alps will be nearly glacier-free by 2100, Schlüchter poses several challenging questions: “Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the Earth 'tip' in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s? . . . Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

 

Although we witness ongoing IPCC attempts to blame such developments upon evil fossil-fueled CO2 emissions, that notion fails to answer these questions. Instead, Schlüchter believes that the sun is the principal long-term driver of climate change, with tectonics and volcanoes acting as significant contributors.

 

Regarding IPCC integrity with strong suspicion, Schlüchter recounts a meeting in England that he was “accidentally” invited to which was led by “someone of the East Anglia Climate Center who had come under fire in the wake of the Climategate e-mails.”

 

As he describes it: “The leader of the meeting spoke like some kind of Father. He was seated at a table in front of those gathered and he took messages. He commented on them either benevolently or dismissively.”

 

Schlüchter’s view of the proceeding took a final nosedive towards the end of the discussion. As he noted: “Lastly it was about tips on research funding proposals and where to submit them best. For me it was impressive to see how the leader of the meeting collected and selected information.”

As a number of other prominent climate scientists I know will attest, there’s one broadly recognized universal tip for those seeking government funding. All proposals with any real prospects for success should somehow link climate change with human activities rather than to natural causes. Even better, those human influences should intone dangerous consequences.

 

Schlüchter warns that the reputation of science is becoming more and more damaged as politics and money gain influence. He concludes, “For me it also gets down to the credibility of science . . . Today many natural scientists are helping hands of politicians, and are no longer scientists who occupy themselves with new knowledge and data. And that worries me.”

 

Yes. That should worry everyone.

 

Larry Bell is a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston, where he directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and heads the graduate program in space architecture. He is author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax,” and his professional aerospace work has been featured on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel-Canada.

see more

19 You must sign in to down-vote this post.

The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming/Climate Change Further Exposed

I am thrilled to see the debate about global warming/climate change opening to the public via the more mainstream media.  (Read the following opinion-piece from The Wall Street Journal.)  For far too long we have been deceived and misled by environmental "non-profit" organizations such as "The Sierra Club", or "The National Geographic", and outright lied to by people like Al Gore with his books and "documentaries" like "An Inconvenient Truth", and intimidated and scared by The United  Nations and their IPCC climate reports, and of course we get taxed to death by our politicians playing off of all the fear and frenzy created by the others.

Just as it is unconscionable for an adult to bully and frighten a child, it is time to call the bluff of all the global warming/climate change hoaxters and snake oil salesmen.  With the world economy in a shambles, countries on the brink of bankruptcy, and unemployment rising, it is time to clear the air and be honest and find the truth about this entire global warming/climate change issue.  The following scientists are making a step in the right direction and I applaud them, as a fellow scientist and citizen of the world.  If the world economy implodes, climate change will be the least of our worries.

Just one further thought:

"There never was a democracy yet that did not commit
suicide." 
John Adams

Economic suicide is where the believers and promoters of man-caused global warming have been leading us.
Peter

• OPINION
• FEBRUARY 21, 2012

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming

The authors of the Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed, 'No Need to Panic about Global Warming,' respond to their critics.

Editor's Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.

The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.)

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

Enlarge Image

Close

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.

Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that "the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible." Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.

One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives  (a drive toward increased central governmental control, socialism, fascism? Peter) other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment. All of us are members of major academies and scientific societies, but we urge Journal readers not to depend on pompous academy pronouncements—on what we say—but to follow the motto of the Royal Society of Great Britain, one of the oldest learned societies in the world: nullius in verba—take nobody's word for it. As we said in our op-ed, everyone should look at certain stubborn facts that don't fit the theory espoused in the Trenberth letter, for example—the graph of surface temperature above, and similar data for the temperature of the lower atmosphere and the upper oceans.
 
What are we to make of the letter's claim: "Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record." We don't see any warming trend after the year 2000 in the graph. It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years. But the record indicates that long before CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere began to increase, the earth began to warm in fits and starts at the end of the Little Ice Age—hundreds of years ago. This long term-trend is quite likely to produce several warm years in a row. The question is how much of the warming comes from CO2 and how much is due to other, both natural and anthropogenic, factors?

There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.

The Trenberth letter states: "Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused." However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact.

But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. To claim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does, that disputing this constitutes "extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert" is peculiar indeed.

One might infer from the Trenberth letter that scientific facts are determined by majority vote. Some postmodern philosophers have made such claims. But scientific facts come from observations, experiments and careful analysis, not from the near-unanimous vote of some group of people.
The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate "extreme views" can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition. In our op-ed we mentioned the campaign circa 2003 to have Dr. Chris de Freitas removed not only from his position as editor of the journal Climate Research, but from his university job as well. Much of that campaign is documented in Climategate emails, where one of the signatories of the Trenberth et al. letter writes: "I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from Climate Research [then edited by Dr. de Freitas] is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken."

Or consider the resignation last year of Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. In a fulsome resignation editorial eerily reminiscent of past recantations by political and religious heretics, Mr. Wagner confessed to his "sin" of publishing a properly peer-reviewed paper by University of Alabama scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell containing the finding that IPCC models exaggerate the warming caused by increasing CO2.

Getty Images/Ikon Images

 

(A great picture of what the Earth might look like with higher sea levels....scary indeed!)

 

The Trenberth letter tells us that decarbonization of the world's economy would "drive decades of economic growth." This is not a scientific statement nor is there evidence it is true. A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months.  (Obama environmental crony corrupt capitalism?  Peter)

The European experience with green technologies has also been discouraging. A study found that every new "green job" in Spain destroyed more than two existing jobs and diverted capital that would have created new jobs elsewhere in the economy. More recently, European governments have been cutting subsidies for expensive CO2-emissionless energy technologies, not what one would expect if such subsidies were stimulating otherwise languid economies. And as we pointed out in our op-ed, it is unlikely that there will be any environmental benefit from the reduced CO2 emissions associated with green technologies, which are based on the demonization of CO2.

Turning to the letter of the president of the American Physical Society (APS), Robert Byer, we read, "The statement [on climate] does not declare, as the signatories of the letter [our op-ed] suggest, that the human contribution to climate change is incontrovertible." This seems to suggest that APS does not in fact consider the science on this key question to be settled.

Yet here is the critical paragraph from the statement that caused the resignation of Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever and many other long-time members of the APS: "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." No reasonable person can read this and avoid the conclusion that APS is declaring the human impact "incontrovertible." Otherwise there would be no logical link from "global warming" to the shrill call for mitigation.

The APS response to the concerns of its membership was better than that of any other scientific society, but it was not democratic. The management of APS took months to review the statement quoted above, and it eventually declared that not a word needed to be changed, though some 750 words were added to try to explain what the original 157 words really meant. APS members were permitted to send in comments but the comments were never made public.

In spite of the obstinacy of some in APS management, APS members of good will are supporting the establishment of a politics-free, climate physics study group within the Society. If successful, it will facilitate much needed discussion, debate, and independent research in the physics of climate.
In summary, science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.

The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antoninio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

We Must Finally Get Past The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

In my opinion the scientific debate about whether mankind's activities play a significant role in global climate change is long over, as summarized in the commentary below. What remains is a battle to regain political and economic sanity. Whenever anyone claims we must produce electric cars, or "downsize", or "reduce our carbon footprint", or subsidize the building of "wind farms", "solar farms" and uneconomic geothermal energy, remind them that the rationale behind all of this activity is based on a fundamental lie.

As I have been saying and trying to show on this blog since day one, the idea that man-caused global warming, or climate change, or "climate disruption" is and has been an enormous LIE, a terrible, costly, and cruel hoax. We need to continue fighting to convince the dwindling number of people who still believe in the myth of man-caused global warming that they are flat-out wrong. It is past time to put an end to the hoax. Others can do the finger-pointing and play the blame-game. It is just time to put an end to the nonsense. America and our economic survival depends on it.
Peter

Climate Alarmism at the New York Times

Written by S. Fred Singer, American Thinker 07 November 2010 (source)

The New York Times editorial page has been persistent in publishing alarmist editorials on climate change. The latest one appearing shortly before the November elections accused politicians of being in "denial" about climate change. What nonsense! Climate is changing all the time; it has been doing it for millions of years -- without any human intervention. And politicians are simply trying to stay in step with the public.

There is no credible evidence at all that human activities have had any appreciable influence on global climate changes during the last century. While many scientists still believe in a major human contribution, the number of skeptical scientists has been growing steadily as the evidence against AGW [anthropogenic global warming] becomes ever more apparent.

Just ask yourself: what evidence is there to indicate that any warming over the last century is due to human influences? Not even the UN- supported IPCC has been able to point to any solid facts in favor of AGW. The latest science debate revolves around "finger prints" in the climate record. Do the observations of temperature change in the atmosphere show a certain pattern, which is characteristic of greenhouse warming? The answer is a resounding No.

Without any scientific evidence to support AGW, it is wasteful, counterproductive -- and foolish -- to institute regulations that limit the emissions of CO2, restrict the use of energy, and misdirect energy policy into such areas wind farms, solar projects, and biofuels like ethanol. For economic survival, all of these require huge subsidies. which are paid for by citizens twice over: first as taxpayers, then as energy users.

The mid-term elections have pointed up the public skepticism about AGW. Supporters of misguided policies to control emissions of carbon dioxide, through "cap and trade" and fuel standards, went down to defeat almost everywhere. California provided the big exception and now faces an economic disaster.

As reported by Cooler Heads Digest: "... the new Republican majority in the House is largely skeptical of the claim that global warming is a potential crisis and is close to unanimously opposed to cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing measures. Not only is cap-and-trade dead, but there is a good chance that the House next year will move legislation to block or delay the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The question is, can such a measure pass the Democratic-controlled Senate? There is certainly a majority in the Senate for blocking EPA, but sixty votes will be needed. My guess is that there will be more than sixty votes. As EPA regulations start to bite next year, Senators will start to hear complaints from their constituents. And a large number of Democratic Senators are up for re-election in 2012 and will want to avoid the fate of so many of their colleagues this year.

The NY Times may be seriously out of step with its own readers, At least that's how I would judge the results of a survey of readers of Scientific American, a magazine that has been just as alarmist about AGW as the Times:

**77% believe that current climate change is caused by natural processes
**68% think we should do nothing about climate change, are powerless to stop it
**90% approve of climate scientists debating the issue in public forums
**83% believe that the UN-IPCC is corrupt, prone to groupthink, and has a political agenda.

The New York Times is doing a disservice to its readers and to the US public in stoking unreasonable fears not based on solid science.

Source

Carbon Dioxide Is Actually Good? Who Would Ever Have Thought...

Skeptics From Around the Globe

FROM- US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT

Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming

By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers

A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.

"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.

Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.

Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity.

In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

Steward is part of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2 that is funding pro-CO2 ads in two states represented by two key lawmakers involved in the energy debate: Montana's Sen. Max Baucus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide A Blessing

Carbon Dioxide Levels Are a Blessing, Not a Problem

Written By: Dudley J. Hughes

Published In: Environment & Climate News > May 2007

Publication date: 05/01/2007

Publisher: The Heartland Institute (source)

---

For centuries, bloodletting was an accepted medical procedure administered by physicians to treat patients for most illnesses. In today's world, we find it almost inconceivable that such a practice was condoned by entire populations.

Similarly, the claim that increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is causing "global warming" has been accepted as "fact" in many countries worldwide. This belief has no more scientific foundation than the bloodletting of past generations.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide may be gradually rising, but there is no compelling evidence that such a modest rise in CO2, which still comprises significantly less than 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, will have any substantial negative effect on the Earth's environment.

Scientists Ignored

Activists have successfully pressured governments to declare CO2 a pollutant and to take drastic measures to reduce the amount entering the atmosphere. By contrast, little publicity is given to the large number of qualified scientists who strongly contest the claims of the advocacy groups. These scientists contend that if CO2 plays any part in global warming, it is so insignificant that it can barely be measured, let alone be the major cause.

One rationale given for claims that Earth's recent, moderate warming is being caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 is the high surface temperature of Venus, which stands at approximately 472° C. Venus is an Earth-size planet that has a predominantly CO2 atmosphere.

If the Earth’s Atmosphere Were a Football Stadium
Atmospheric Gas	Percent in Atmosphere	People in the Stadium
Nitrogen (N2)	78%	7,800
Oxygen (O2)	21%	2,100
Argon (A)	1%	100
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	0.038%	4

However, a comparison between Venus and the Earth's recent moderate increase in atmospheric CO2 is misleading, because there is 25,000 times as much CO2 in Venus's atmosphere as there is in the atmosphere of Earth.

CO2 Rare in Atmosphere

Earth's atmosphere is made up of several major gases. For simplicity, let us picture a football stadium with about 10,000 people in the stands. Assume each person represents a small volume of one type of gas. The approximate numbers of people representing the various types of gas are set out in the accompanying table.

Not included in the table is "water vapor," the amount of which varies in the atmosphere but probably averages about 2 percent at any point in time. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas and has more impact on global temperature than all other greenhouse gases combined.

Carbon dioxide is represented as only about 4 parts in 10,000, the smallest volume of any major atmospheric gas.

Moreover, those who name CO2 as a pollutant are not concerned with the 4 parts, but only with 1 part--the portion added during the past 150 years by the burning of fossil fuels. This 1/10,000 increase is the target of the Kyoto Protocol.

Oxygen More Important

After nitrogen, the second most common gas in the atmosphere is oxygen (O2), which is derived from CO2 through photosynthesis. In simple terms, photosynthesis is the process by which the leaves of trees and other plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere, retaining the carbon (C) for food while releasing the O2 back into the atmosphere. Some organisms in water also release free oxygen through this same process.

There was no free oxygen in the Earth's early atmosphere. Relatively late in the geologic history of the Earth, photosynthesizing organisms began to release oxygen. This has continued to the present, gradually changing the composition of the air to 21 percent free oxygen at the expense of CO2.

CO2 Now Historically Low

A thin veneer of sedimentary rocks blankets the Earth's surface and, along with ice cores from glaciers, can provide a reasonable geologic history of the Earth's past atmosphere. Scientific study of these rocks suggests the Earth's atmosphere in ancient times had considerably more CO2 than today.

Many experiments have demonstrated that the rate of plant growth is largely governed by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the growth rate of plants increases dramatically. Similarly, the plant growth rate decreases as atmospheric CO2 decreases.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the basic food for plants, and since plants provide the food for animal life (including humans), CO2 is the base of the food chain for all advanced life forms on Earth.

The present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely low by historical standards. If atmospheric CO2 is significantly reduced, it is more likely that slower plant growth could affect world food supplies while having little effect on global warming. The life of all plants and animals on Earth is dependent on CO2 for food and oxygen.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the staff of life for our planet.

---

Dudley J. Hughes (awbyrd@bellsouth.net) is a retired geologist and author of A Geologic Reinterpretation of the Earth's Atmospheric History, Inferring a Major Role by CO2, published in 1998 by the College of Geosciences at Texas A & M University.

The Political Mess That Is Man-Caused Global Warming

The New York Times just reported the EPA is going to announce it has determined carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "pollutant" that "threatens public health and welfare". The following abstract of an article published by the American Chemical Society directly contradicts the EPA's statement. There needs to be a battle here. The implications of the use of the power the EPA has is enormous.

(Note: I always use the term "man-caused" global warming instead of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", abbreviated as AGW, because I don't want anyone to be misled or put-off by the impressive-sounding, pretentious "scientific" word, "anthropogenic". Man-caused global warming is what it is, a myth perpetuated by those with a political agenda.)
Peter

"E.P.A. to Clear the Way for Regulation of Warming Gases
The agency on Friday
is expected to formally declare carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases
to be pollutants that
threaten public health and welfare."
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

The following abstract is from "wagmc" here.

Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide.
Robert H. Essenhigh, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

Abstract:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ ~ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed.

However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (~100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of ~4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of ~5 years carrying C12 and ~16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years.

Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (~100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis.

With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (~100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors.

This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

The following is the link to the original source.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

Will Congress Listen To Science And Reason About Global Warming?

Will the American Congress listen to scientists about the issue of global warming being caused by carbon dioxide emissions? Or will they listen to political organizations like the United Nations (IPCC) and (failed) politicians pursuing a highly profitable personal agenda, like Al Gore?

President Obama wants to tax industries and activities that produce carbon dioxide, as does every internal combustion engine, and every animal that exhales. Obama is counting on his "carbon cap and trade" scheme to raise Billions of dollars in revenue for the Federal Government. This is nothing more than a thinly-disguised tax that will be passed on to the consumer, all based on the myth of man-caused global warming. It is truly economic and scientific insanity. Will Congress listen? This is a huge factor in the current worldwide economic crisis. Stay tuned.
Peter



Princeton Physicist Tells Congress Earth in 'CO2 Famine' -- Increase 'Will Be Good for Mankind'
Dr. Will Happer, once fired by Al Gore, challenges former vice president's much-published claim that warming debate over.

By Jeff Poor Business & Media Institute 2/25/2009 11:08:28 PM (source)
When former Vice President Al Gore said the science was settled on the issue of global warming before Congress in 2007, he might have meant it was settled as far as people that he would allow to work for him.

Dr. William Happer, currently a professor of Physics at Princeton University, was once fired by Gore at the Department of Energy in 1993 for disagreeing with the vice president on the effects of ozone to humans and plant life, also disagrees with Gore’s claim that manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) increases the temperature of the earth and is a threat to mankind. Happer appeared before the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee on Feb. 25 and explained CO2 is in short-supply in relative terms of the history of the planet.

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene [geologic epoch] – 280 [parts per million (ppm)] – that’s unheard of,” Happer said. “Most of the time, it’s at least 1,000 [ppm] and it’s been quite higher than that.”

Happer said that when CO2 levels were higher – much higher than they are now, the laws of nature still managed to function as we understand them today.

“The earth was just fine in those times,” Happer said. “You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three or four times what they are now. And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that, you know, we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started.”

That directly conflicts with the line Gore has been telling the media for years. In November 2007, Gore told NBC’s “Today” that there was “as strong a consensus as you'll ever see in science” that global warming was caused by mankind.

The chairwoman of the EPW committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has long supported Gore’s “global warming battle.” During Wednesday’s hearing, she was skeptical of Happer’s view, stating a lot had changed in the 80 million years. But Happer explained that the laws of science had not changed.

“Well, I don’t think that the laws of nature, physics and chemistry have changed in 80 million year,” Happer said. “Eighty million years ago, the earth was a very prosperous place and there’s no reason to think it will suddenly become bad now.”

Happer claimed that in fact, an increase in CO2 levels wouldn’t be a bad thing at all, but a good thing for humanity.

“Increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some warming of the earth’s surface,” Happer said. “The key question is will the net effect of the warming and any other effects of CO2 be good or bad for humanity? I believe the increase of CO2 will be good.”

Happer explained to the committee that the global warming movement mirrors the temperance movement that led to Prohibition in the 1920s. He claimed the movement has enlisted various elements of society, including the media, to promote their cause. He noted his opinion that children are being misused to spread the “climate catastrophe” movement’s message.

“Like the Temperance Movement a hundred years ago, the climate catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, leadership of scientific societies, trustees of charitable foundations, many other influential people to their cause,” Happer said. “Even elementary school teachers and writers of children’s books terrify our children with the idea of impending climate doom. Children should not be force-fed propaganda masquerading as science.”

Also accompanying Happer on the Senate panel were Dr. R.K. Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Christopher Field director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science, and Dr. Howard Frumkin, director of the National Center for Environmental Health.

(Another) Professor Denies Man's Effect On Global Warming

The title of this article is misleading. Prof. Freitas is not denying the "greenhouse effect", he simply (and rightly) doubts that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is having a significant effect. He is a climate scientist and knows the issue from all sides. One of his statements is worthy of remembering. It is: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."

Also please note that the following statements were heard in a courtroom, which is where the debate about the causes of climate change should be exposed.
Peter

Published on Otago Daily Times Online (http://www.odt.co.nz)
Professor denies greenhouse effect
By Rosie Manins
Created 30/01/2009 - 05:00
Hugh Rennie Theories of climate change were challenged during an Environment Court appeal hearing for Meridian Energy's proposed $2 billion Project Hayes wind farm yesterday.
Sediment concerns raised [2]
As a witness for appellant Roch Sullivan, climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas was questioned on his evidence, which had been contested in the evidence of other climate witnesses called in the hearing.
Prof Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change.

"Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.
"People are being misled by people making money out of this," Prof de Freitas said.
He said mild warming of the climate was beneficial, especially in a country such as New Zealand, which had a prominent agricultural industry.

"One could argue that carbon dioxide is quite beneficial. There may be benefits of wind farming that I may not be aware of, but there is no data to show benefits in terms of mitigating potential dangerous changes in climate by offsetting carbon dioxide," he said.
Prof de Freitas said the Kyoto Protocol was a "politically and economically motivated instrument to deal with a perceived problem".

"I don't think anyone will benefit one way or another by adhering to it. It's not a well-formulated treaty . . . the so-called or claimed environmental benefits, I am not aware of," he said.
Prof de Freitas was questioned by Meridian Energy lawyer Hugh Rennie QC, about an article published in The New Zealand Herald in 2004, in which Prof de Freitas expressed his thoughts on wind power, the Kyoto Protocol, and climate change.
"You refer to New Zealand's need to meet its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol [in the article].
"Would you accept that any selection of generation which avoids the emission of substances controlled by that protocol is beneficial to New Zealand?" Mr Rennie asked Prof de Freitas.
Prof de Freitas took exception to the question.
"You are using legal gymnastics to corner me into a position I would not otherwise take," he said.
Prof de Freitas admitted there was debate about climate change, when questioned during cross-examination by Central Otago District Council lawyer Graeme Todd.
"The debate centres on causes. There is a possibility climate change could be impacted by human beings, but it is not a significant impact," he said.
In response to a question by commissioner Alex Sutherland, Prof de Freitas said the jury was out on climate change, and preemptive action could be dangerous.
"There's no basis for alarm. We might be shooting ourselves in the foot if we act on what turns out to be a bubble-less pot," he said.
Day 26Panel: Environment Court judge Jon Jackson, commissioner Alex Sutherland, commissioner Heather McConachy, and deputy commissioner Ken Fletcher.
Yesterday: Otago Regional Council water resource scientist Matthew Dale, of Dunedin; climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland; Electricity Commission director of transmission John Gleadow, of Wellington.

Scheduled for today: Mr Gleadow will continue to give evidence.
Quote of the day: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."
- climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.
Source URL (retrieved on 01/02/2009 - 07:56): http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/41301/professor-denies-greenhouse-effect

Have We Been Misled About Past Carbon Dioxide Levels?

There are many reasons why atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, from any source, do not control the Earth's climate. However, most of us assume that measures and estimates of past levels of CO2 are accurate. New evidence shows that may not be the case. If this is true, why have we been misled? If we have been misled about the temperature history, and there is much evidence suggesting we have been, why not historical CO2 levels?
Peter


CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant.
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, December 10, 2008

How many failed predictions, discredited assumptions and evidence of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility? CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant. Despite this President Elect Obama met with Al Gore on December 9 no doubt to plan a climate change strategy based on these problems. They make any plan to reduce of CO2 completely unnecessary.

• 
  Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong.

• They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong.

• They told us, using the infamous “hockey stick” graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong.

• They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong.

• They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong.

• They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong.

• They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong it was 1934.

• They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong.

• They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong. This last is critical because the claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era. In fact, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today, but how did they conclude they were lower?

In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explains,
The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”

Ice cores provide the historic record and data collected at Mauna Loa the recent record. Both records are drastically modified to produce a smooth continuous curve with little variability. This was necessary to confirm the evidence falsely concluded from many 19th century measures that pre-industrial levels were approximately 280 ppm and didn’t vary much. So how did they engineer the smooth curves and ignore the fact the 19th century record shows a global average of 335 ppm and considerable variability from year to year.

Most people don’t know that thousands of direct measures of atmospheric CO2 were made beginning in 1812. Scientists took the readings with calibrated instruments and precise measurements as the work of Ernst-Georg Beck has thoroughly documented. Guy Stewart Callendar was an earlier visitor to these records. He rejected most of the records including 69% of the 19th century records and only selected certain records that established the pre-industrial level as 280 ppm. Here is a plot of the records with those Callendar selections circled.
It is clear how only low readings were chosen. Also notice how the slope and trend is changed compared to the entire record.

As Jaworowski notes,
“The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv.”

Beck recently confirmed Jaworowski’s research. A September 2008 article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated the 19th century findings. In a devastating conclusion Beck writes,
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.

So the pre-industrial level is at least 50 ppm higher than the level put into the computer models that produce all future climate predictions. The models also incorrectly assume uniform atmospheric global distribution and virtually no variability of CO2 from year to year.
Beck found, “Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.” Here is a plot from Beck comparing 19th century readings with ice core and Mauna Loa data.

Compare the variability of the atmospheric measures with the smooth line of the ice core record. Eliminating extreme readings and then applying a long term smoothing average achieved this. When smoothing is done on the scale of the ice core record a great deal of information is lost. Elimination of high readings prior to the smoothing makes the loss even greater. Also note that as with all known records the temperature changes before the CO2, in this record by approximately 5 years.

Elimination of data is also done with the Mauna Loa and other atmospheric readings, which can vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon. He ignored natural sources, a practice that continues. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 meters (m) up the volcano. As Beck notes “Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude.” (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol 19, No.7.)
Keeling’s son continues to operate the Mauna Loa facility and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements.” Since the young Keeling is a co-author of the IPCC reports they accept the version that Mauna Loa is representative of global readings and that they reflect an increase since pre-industrial levels.

The Ice Core record
Jaworowski estimates the ice core readings are at least 20% low. That is more reasonable given the CO2 levels for 600 millions years using geologic evidence. Here the current level of 385 ppm is the lowest in the entire record and only equaled by a period between 315 and 270 million years ago (mya).

There are many problems with the ice core record. It takes years, sometimes up to 80, for air to be trapped in the ice so the question is what is actually being trapped and measured? Melt water moving through the ice especially when the ice is close to the surface can contaminate the air bubble. Bacteria form in the ice releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at great depth. Under the pressure below 50m ice changes from brittle to plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear as the ice layers meld and compress. A considerable depth of ice covering a long period of time is required to obtain a single reading at depth.

Further evidence of the effects of smoothing and the artificially low ice core readings are provided by measurements of stomata. Stomata are the small openings on leaves that vary directly with the amount of atmospheric CO2. A comparison of a stomata record with the ice core record for a 2000-year period illustrates the issue.

Stomata data on the right show the higher readings and variability when compared to the excessively smoothed ice core record on the left. This aligns quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. A Danish stomata record shows levels of 333 ppm 9400 years ago and 348 ppm 9600 years ago.

The EPA is planning to declare CO2 a toxic substance and a pollutant. Governments are preparing to create carbon taxes and draconian restrictions that will cripple economies for a completely non-existent problem. It appears that a multitude of failed predictions, discredited assumptions and pieces of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility. Credibility should have collapsed but political control and insanity prevail. (4)

“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”
Letters@canadafreepress.com
Older articles by Dr. Tim Ball

Oceans, Carbon Dioxide And Climate

I think the idea that the oceans dominate the global climate has a lot of merit. This is due to their immense area and volume, their heat capacity, and the ability of sea water to remove carbon dioxide by precipitating it in the form of carbonate rocks. The oceans also contain huge amounts of carbon dioxide in solution, releasing it into the atmosphere when the water warms, and absorbing it when the oceans cool. In the following article, Dr. Endersbee provides documentation showing man's influence on global warming and climate change is negligible.
Peter


Carbon Dioxide and the Oceans
Dr. Lance Endersbee in Focus
Should we try harder to understand the causes of natural climate change instead of assuming present climate change is man-made? In the past, sea temperatures were obtained from measurements by passing ships in the sea lanes of the world. It is only in the past three decades that more accurate data on sea surface temperatures has become available. The analysis of this recent data by the author shows that: � the oceans regulate the composition of the atmosphere; the influence on climate of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is negligible; and global climate change has natural causes. The oceans and the atmosphere are quite shallow in relation to the vast surface area of the oceans.

The interaction of the atmosphere and the oceans is essentially a phenomenon of the ocean surface. It would be expected that there would be almost a direct correlation between levels of CO2 in the air and the global mean sea surface temperatures, and that is the case. It is possible to plot an experience curve of the relationship between ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. In order to do so it is necessary to recognise that the oceans have a vast storage capacity for heat and dissolved gases, and that changes are slow. On the other hand, the atmosphere has a much more rapid response time. If we use a 12-month moving average of atmospheric CO2 and a 21-year moving average of the more accurate recent data on global average sea surface temperatures, a remarkably clear experience curve is obtained. The 12-month moving average of CO2 levels filters out the variations of the annual cycle and, in related analyses, provides a view of the influence of other natural events. The 21-year moving average of sea surface temperature covers the complete solar cycle, including the change in magnetic polarity of the sun, the El Nino and La Nina influences on global climate, and recognises the vast storage capacity of the oceans for CO2 and the slow response time of the oceans.

The chart shows that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global average sea surface temperatures are locked together. The correlation is so firm it is reasonable to include it as a condition in the computer simulations used to study climate change.
Se larger image here

It is my view that the present fear of man-made climate change is quite mistaken. We should try harder to understand the real causes of natural climate change.

Lance Endersbee
Emeritus Professor Endersbee AO, FTSE, is a civil engineer and his early professional career included 27 years in engineering practice followed by 13 years at Monash University. His career in engineering practice included service with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania and the United Nations in South-East Asia as an expert on dam design and hydro power development. He is now active on conceptual plans for several major new national engineering projects directed to Australian national economic and social development.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Good For The Environment? YES

Here is another article by Dr. Roy Spencer. He reiterates his doubt about the myth of man-caused global warming. In addition he speculates on the reason why man's addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere may really be beneficial, instead of harmful, as so many people mistakenly believe. If he is is correct, then all of our efforts to limit CO2 emissions are a terrible, tragic waste of effort and resources.

Of course Dr. Spencer is not the first person to come to this conclusion, but he is one of a growing number of scientists who have come to the same conclusion. Search the blog here for Roy Spencer and you will find much more of what he has to say on the weather, climate, and global warming. Also, please note he has a new book out titled "Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads To Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, And Misguided Policies That Hurt The Poor".
Peter



More Carbon Dioxide, Please: If not, why not?
By Roy Spencer
(Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, and is currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville)

There seems to be an unwritten assumption among environmentalists - and among the media - that any influence humans have on nature is, by definition, bad. I even see it in scientific papers written by climate researchers. For instance, if we can measure some minute amount of a trace gas in the atmosphere at the South Pole, well removed from its human source, we are astonished at the far-reaching effects of mankind's "pollution."

But if nature was left undisturbed, would it be any happier and more peaceful? Would the carnivores stop eating those poor, defenseless herbivores, as well as each other? Would fish and other kinds of sea life stop infringing on the rights of others by feasting on them? Would there be no more droughts, hurricanes, floods, heat waves, tornadoes, or glaciers flowing toward the sea?

In the case of global warming, the alleged culprit - carbon dioxide - just happens to be necessary for life on Earth. How can Al Gore say with a straight face that we are treating the atmosphere like an "open sewer" by dumping carbon dioxide into it? Would he say the same thing if we were dumping more oxygen into the atmosphere? Or more nitrogen?

As a climate researcher, I am increasingly convinced that most of our recent global warming has been natural, not manmade. If true, this would mean that global temperatures can be expected to peak in the coming years (if they haven't already), and global cooling will eventually ensue.

Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that manmade global warming really is a false alarm. In that case, we would still need to ask: What are the other negative effects of pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere? Well, plant physiologists have known for a long time that most vegetation loves more carbon dioxide. It grows faster, is more drought-tolerant, and is more efficient in its water use. While the pre-industrial CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was only about 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume, and now it is around 380 ppm, some greenhouses pump it all the way up to around 1,000 ppm. How can environmentalists claim that helping vegetation to grow is a bad thing?

The bigger concern has been the possible effect of the extra CO2 on the world's oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7).

Still, the main worry has been that the extra CO2 could hurt the growth of plankton, which represents the start of the oceanic food chain. But recent research (published on April 18 in Science Express) has now shown, contrary to expectations, that one of the most common forms of plankton actually grows faster and bigger when more CO2 is pumped into the water. Like vegetation on land, it loves the extra CO2, too!It is quite possible that the biosphere (vegetation, sea life, etc.) has been starved for atmospheric CO2. Before humans started burning fossil fuels, vegetation and ocean plankton had been gobbling up as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they could, but it was like a vacuum cleaner trying to suck through a stopped-up hose.

Now, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year, the biosphere takes out an average of 50 percent of that extra amount. Even after we triple the amount of CO2 we produce, nature still takes out 50 percent of the extra amount. I think it is time for scientists to consider the possibility that more CO2 in the atmosphere might, on the whole, be good for life on Earth. Oh, I'm sure there will be some species which are hurt more than helped, but this is true of any change in nature. There are always winners and losers.

For instance, during a strong El Nino event, trillions of animals in the ocean die as the usual patterns of ocean temperature are disrupted. When Mother Nature does something like this it is considered natural. Yet, if humans were to do such a thing, it would be considered an environmental catastrophe. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

The view that nature was in some sort of preferred, yet fragile, state of balance before humans came along is arbitrary and philosophical - even religious. It is entirely possible that there are other, more preferable states of balance in nature which are more robust and less fragile than whatever the state of nature was before we came along.You would think that science is the last place you would find such religious opinions, yet they dominate the worldview of scientists.

Natural scientists tend to worship nature, and they then teach others to worship nature, too. all under the guise of "science." And to the extent that this view is religious, then making environmental laws based upon that view could be considered a violation of the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The automatic assumption that mankind's production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels is bad for the environment needs to be critically examined. Unfortunately, scientists who question that point of view are immediately branded as shills for Big Oil. But since I am already accused of this (falsely, I might add), I really don't mind being one of the first scientists to raise the issue.

Source